Instructors: Josh Uhl (
[email protected]), Danil Nagy (
[email protected]), Bika Rebek (
[email protected]), Lexi Tsien (
[email protected]) “Drawing, whether done by hand or using sophisticated computer software, can be either descriptive or prescriptive. If descriptive drawings can be subjective (impressionist, expressionist, and so forth) or objective (“technical” or “analytical”), prescriptive drawings are intended to be operative; they are manifestos of sorts. They are devices for thinking as well as for presenting positions.” ‐ Bernard Tschumi, Operative Drawing, The Activist Drawing Architects do not make buildings; we make drawings. Our drawings can be prescriptive when they are generated to convey a particular set of formal relationships, and they can be descriptive when they act as tools used to interrogate adjacencies and spatial conditions. In either case, a well‐crafted drawing becomes a feedback loop for the architect, allowing one to interrogate their design, respond to the drawing, and further their proposal. Architecture’s history of projection‐based representation developed a certain level of stasis in its evolution over the last half a century. However, recent shifts to a ‘paperless’ architecture continue to have a profound impact on the field of architecture and its modes of representation and analysis. Beyond severing the longstanding relationship of the line to paper, the extraction of the vector to a virtual realm is accompanied by a simultaneous influx of data. Tools like Building Information Modeling and other parametric based modes of practice have saturated our methods of representation with a significant amount of information. With this new data saturation, the position of the architectural drawing is in flux.